International Trade Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

You began your remarks not dissimilar to the vein of Mr. Allison, who suggested that a similar motion is now before at least three other committees. I wonder if you would like to make a motion in that regard to table here until we've heard from one of those committees, so I could get the understanding of the committee if that's the way they want to proceed. Otherwise, it's just floating out there.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay. I'll move to table this motion, as it's being considered by other committees, more appropriate, I believe, to the motion at hand.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This is a trade motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a motion to table, and I'm happy to hear debate on that motion.

Just for clarity, here's where we are. A similar motion is simultaneously before four committees. The suggestion is that it be dealt with by the finance committee and that we table it at this committee until we've heard from the finance committee so we don't have to be redundant.

That is a motion that's on the floor. I'm open to debate.

Mr. Pallister, did you want to begin that debate?

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Oh, glory be. Thank you.

Just because I'm not running again, I didn't want my constituents to think I wasn't working for them and other Canadians.

This is a good motion for several reasons. First of all, colleagues, the finance committee has already agreed to undertake this, and has dedicated two meetings to it. I'm all for expressing sympathy to anybody, but the fact is that the families affected by changes in the manufacturing and forestry sector deserve more than plaintive weeping and motions such as this one, which are convoluted at best, and simply designed to gather attention at worst.

The fact of the matter is we have to be effective in representing the Canadian people, and that's what we'll do if we let the finance committee deal with this, as they've already undertaken to do. The industry committee had the same motion brought to them and established that they would not deal with it and that they would have the finance committee deal with it, and then undertake to work effectively in cooperation with their colleagues on that committee.

For us to play with this motion all day is not showing respect for the people to whom we should be showing respect. There are five parts to this motion, gentlemen, dealing with aid; safeguards; anti-dumping; and calling us to undertake a study while we are in the midst of one that we have agreed is our highest priority; and then that we should report this motion.

Now, each of these, on its own, is a complex and technical area that deserves discussion, granted; but for us to do that in this format and to expect this motion to be dealt with effectively in the time we have, and in a real way, is simply ludicrous. We are wasting our time here, and we should simply let the finance committee do the work it has undertaken to do in advance of our meeting today. This calls for us to delay for a very brief time and then to examine what they have decided to do and to build on that, working effectively with our colleagues, rather than trying to piggyback, for what purpose, I do not know.

So I strongly support the idea of tabling this, and let's get on with the work that we should be undertaking to represent the Canadian people effectively.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What I understand is that the party in power does not have time to waste studying the question of the manufacturing industry. I am very surprised and sorry to hear that. I will not go over it again. Talking about a crisis in the manufacturing sector primarily caused by foreign competition would be a waste of time when trade laws need to be revised? We are sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade and I am being told that there is no time to study this. I find this hard to understand.

The motion presented to the Standing Committee on Finance is not the same as this one. I have the motions before me. The motion made by Paul Crête at the Standing Committee on Finance talks about Technology Partnerships Canada and certain programs. At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it talks about the assistance program for older workers. That is not what we are talking about today, we are talking about international trade. That is the issue before us.

The crisis in the manufacturing sector in relation to foreign trade is a matter of concern to opposition members. You are telling us that this is not an issue, that we are going to talk about Canada-Korea free trade, which with have further impact on the manufacturing sector, and that we are not going to discuss the existing issues? Quebec has lost 150,000 jobs, and the rest of Canada has lost almost as many — I don't know how many — and we are going to talk about the weather? Is that what you're concerned about, as a government?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. I think that this motion is a matter of priority for the committee and that we should vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Cardin has explained the motion very clearly and has answered all the questions. Obviously he knows exactly what his motion means and would could come out of it.

So what we have back from the government after that explanation are comments that, if I was partisan, I would be cutting and pasting and mailing out right across western Canada. This is a waste of time, discussions, when 200 Canadian families every single day are losing a breadwinner--200 families over the next 24 hours. That's 10 square city blocks devastated by the lack of action in the manufacturing and forestry sector every single day. So if we delay for five days, Mr. Chair, what's the consequence? Well, 1,000 families lose a breadwinner. That's the consequence.

So we have a motion that deals with trade issues. I see “trade” written six times in the motion--trade measures, trade laws, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, trade negotiations. This is a trade motion brought to the trade committee, and Conservative members don't want us to take action and want to refer it off to some unknown black hole where Conservative promises go, I imagine.

There is no doubt that we have to take action. There is absolutely no doubt that the House of Commons should be seized with this question.

Mr. Cardin has responded in detail to each and every question offered. So I would say, Mr. Chair, if the Conservatives don't want to spend any more time with this, what the committee should do is vote down the tabling motion, vote the motion through, and let's have the debate in the House of Commons, and let's have this committee take a stand on what is a crisis. Two hundred families today will lose a breadwinner in manufacturing and forestry--200 tomorrow, 200 the next day, 200 the next day--and that crisis is getting worse until this government takes action.

Mr. Chair, we have to take action, and I hope we defeat this tabling motion. I'm sure my Liberal colleagues will be voting to defeat the tabling motion as well, because it's in the interest of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Temelkovski.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've been going on for over an hour. To find out after an hour that this motion is in front of another committee.... I think it's a little unfair when you know this and you want to move it over there that you wouldn't table this right at the beginning rather than wasting an hour and fifteen minutes. I think we are in support of this in spirit. We would like to hear a little more about the motion, rather than tabling it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin, on the tabling motion.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Are you talking about tabling the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The debate is on the motion to table.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

But there are still some questions that have been asked since I spoke a few minutes ago.

On the question of the tabling motion, as Mr. Allison said, we shouldn't waste time. If the members of this committee care about the situation in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, we have to move ahead faster. To do that, we simply have to introduce this motion, vote on it and send it to Parliament, where the discussion of this subject will be held. That way we will not be wasting time here, in committee, and we can keep on working. The debate will be held with all members of Parliament. We will see at that time who is most sensitive to the situation of these industries.

Earlier, Mr. Cannan spoke about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. When those people make a decision, they have to strike a balance between the interests of industry and of consumers. That is why we believe that we should systematically accept the recommendations and decisions of the tribunal. I don't think that anyone can disagree with that.

If I refer to what Mr. Pallister said, this is a good motion. We are starting a new year, so let's make a good resolution and pass this motion, and send it to the House so that all members of Parliament can be involved in a debate on this subject. We cannot rely on other committees to deal with this issue if we do not know the nature of the work they are going to do on it. Let us take responsibility and demonstrate that we are sensitive to the forestry and manufacturing sectors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank each and every member who spoke on this. They have a lot more experience on this particular committee than I do.

But I would like to make a minor change. It's the “recommendations” part that we were trying to clear with Mr. Cardin. Can I make a very--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

No. We're debating a tabling motion. It's a motion to table. When we've dealt with that motion you can come back to the original motion.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Let me speak on that, then.

I'm not going to support tabling this. Subsequently I'm going to make a friendly amendment to change “recommendations” to “decisions”. I would be able to support that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I see. We'll come back to that, if and when we get back to the motion.

We are debating the tabling of the motion. I have no further speakers. We'll call the question on the motion to table.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Welcome back. We've called the motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'm multi-tasking, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let me bring the committee up to speed. We are in the middle of a vote. We have called the question. The question is whether we shall table the motion.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you want to vote on the tabling motion or make a decision today?